calculate_click_id_coverage

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the calculation topic and does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it writes or modifies anything, what the return value looks like, or how sessions are processed. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured annotation safety hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the operation and the three coverage dimensions efficiently. Under-specification is a completeness issue, not a conciseness issue.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully orient an agent. It does not describe the expected input shape, the computed result, or any edge cases. The tool may be callable, but an agent cannot confidently understand what coverage means or what a successful result looks like.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the 'sessions' parameter. An agent is left without any explanation of what sessions should contain or how they relate to coverage calculation. The description provides no compensating parameter meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('calculate') and a specific resource ('coverage' across capture, persistence, and attachment). This is meaningful and helps distinguish it from sibling tools like diagnose_missing_click_ids or detect_attribution_gaps, though 'coverage' itself is somewhat abstract without a defined denominator.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: an agent would reasonably infer this tool is for computing coverage metrics. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not contrast with nearby siblings such as verify_capture or validate_attribution_pipeline.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.